Compare AWS WAF vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway
AWS WAF is ranked 4th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 10 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 11th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 2 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 7.8, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "Makes sure files are protected, but the solution should be more proactive in detecting threats". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "Stable and simple to use with good technical support". AWS WAF is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Imperva Incapsula and Akamai Kona Site Defender, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with F5 BIG-IP, AWS WAF and F5 Advanced WAF.
 |
Most Helpful Review | |||
| Use Microsoft Azure Application Gateway? Share your opinion. | ||
 Find out what your peers are saying about F5, Cloudflare, Reblaze and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF). Updated: March 2020. 408,154 professionals have used our research since 2012. | |||
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros | |
The most valuable aspect is that it protects our code. It's a bit difficult to overwrite code in our application. It also protects against threats. The most valuable feature is the scalability because it automatically scales up or scales down as per our requirements. The security firewall plus the features that protect against database injections or scripting, The ability to take multiple data sets and match those data sets together is the solution's most valuable feature. The data lake that comes with it is very useful because that allows us to match data sets with different configurations that we wouldn't normally be able to match. The initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment took about ten minutes or less. The customized billing is the most valuable feature. It is a one-click WAF with no effort needed. It is Amazon. Everything is scalable. It is beyond what we need. | The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects. We chose this solution in the first place because it has access to Layer 7. I can control the requests and the content, which I can access on my network if I want to even if it's forbidden access to other external resources. If I want to monitor, for example, traffic, and apply this rule on Layer 7, I can do so. This was our main goal when implementing this application. We wanted to take advantage of the Gateway capabilities. |
Cons | |
It's a bit difficult to apply the right rules for the right security. I would like to be able to view a graphical deployment map in the user interface that will give me an overview of the configuration and help to determine whether I have missed any steps. For now, there is no feature to protect against attack of the bad bots The solution is cloud-based, and therefore the billing model that comes with it could be more intuitive, in my opinion. It's very easy to not fully understand how you tag things for billing and then you can quite easily run up a high bill without realizing it. The solution needs to be more intuitive around the tagging system, which enables the billing. Right now, I have a cloud architect that does that on our behalf and it isn't something that a business user could use because it still requires quite a lot of technical knowledge to do effectively. They should work to define more threats, add more security, and make it more compliant with more security companies. In a future release of this solution, I would like to see additional management features to make things simpler. We need more support as we go global. The user experience, the interface, is lacking. Sometimes it's hard to find certain areas that it has alerted on. | The pricing of the solution could be improved. Right now, it's a bit expensive. The pricing of the solution is a bit high. The solution should offer different pricing systems. |
Pricing and Cost Advice | |
There are different scale options available for WAF. There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees. It's an annual subscription. | Information Not Available |
 Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs. 408,154 professionals have used our research since 2012. | |
Ranking  | |
Views 4,851 Comparisons 3,932 Reviews 10 Average Words per Review 376 Avg. Rating 7.7 | Views 5,378 Comparisons 4,787 Reviews 2 Average Words per Review 393 Avg. Rating 8.5 |
Top Comparisons | |
 Compared 14% of the time.  Compared 14% of the time.  Compared 13% of the time. |  Compared 14% of the time.  Compared 9% of the time. Compared 9% of the time. |
Also Known As | |
| AWS Web Application Firewall | Azure Application Gateway |
Learn | |
| Amazon Video Not Available | Microsoft |
Overview | |
AWS WAF is a web application firewall that helps protect your web applications from common web exploits that could affect application availability, compromise security, or consume excessive resources. AWS WAF gives you control over which traffic to allow or block to your web applications by defining customizable web security rules. You can use AWS WAF to create custom rules that block common attack patterns, such as SQL injection or cross-site scripting, and rules that are designed for your specific application. New rules can be deployed within minutes, letting you respond quickly to changing traffic patterns. Also, AWS WAF includes a full-featured API that you can use to automate the creation, deployment, and maintenance of web security rules. | Azure Application Gateway is a web traffic load balancer that enables you to manage traffic to your web applications. Traditional load balancers operate at the transport layer (OSI layer 4 - TCP and UDP) and route traffic based on source IP address and port, to a destination IP address and port. |
Offer | |
Learn more about AWS WAF | Learn more about Microsoft Azure Application Gateway |
Sample Customers | |
| eVitamins, 9Splay, Senao International | Lilly, AccuWeather, AIRFRANCE, Honeywell, |
Top Industries | |
Software R&D Company37% Media Company16% Comms Service Provider12% Retailer6% | Software R&D Company44% Comms Service Provider10% Media Company9% Government6% |
Find out what your peers are saying about F5, Cloudflare, Reblaze and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF). Updated: March 2020.
408,154 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See also AWS WAF Reviews, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Reviews, and our list of Best Web Application Firewall (WAF) Companies.
We monitor all Web Application Firewall (WAF) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post
reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference
with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.